


e m m izo o 



ssaaoNoo jo Advuan 



LO 



5-^5^ 



The Greatest HIT in War Literature 



D 525 
.07 
Copy 1 



THE 

CATECHISM 



OF 



BALAAM, Jr. 



BY 



AN IRISH-AMERICAN 



SIXTH EDITION 
1915 



120,000 copies of this pamphlet have now been'circulated 

Sixty thousand copies have been printed, mailed and distributed 

at my own personal expense for the good of the cause, but 

I now find the demand for this pamphlet so great that 

I am obliged to ask the cost price of same from 

those who desire large quantities and wish 

to help me in this work, namely: 

ONE CENT PER COPY 

Small quantities will be gladly sent gratis, as heretofore 
upon application to 

HUGH H. MASTERSON 

170 CHAMBERS ST. 

NEW YORK 

Copyright 1915 by 
Hugh H. Masterson, 170 Chambers St., New York 



^fter reading vsame, please p' 



/V 



AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORITIES. ^V q' 



/^V 



The author of this pamphlet must remain anonymous till the end of the 
War. At that time anyone can learn his name from the publisher. 

Author and publisher vouch that every statement herein can be veri- 
fied. It is impossible at any one moment to have every source and author- 
ity at hand. The following references cover much of the ground. 

As to details of German history and political, social and cultural con- 
ditions, see any public library catalog. For a deep study read Chamber- 
lain's "Foundations of the 19th Century." 

On the Kaiser's Powers: Read the German Constitution. 

Who Struck First? Read the American newspapers up to Aug. 1st, 
1914; White Papers, published by N. Y. Times; Count Von Bernstorff in 
N. Y. Times Aug. 30; letters in N. Y. Times Sept. 13; letter from German 
oflScer, Washington Star, Sept. 6; letter in N. Y. Times Aug. 30, headed 
"Russia's Early War Moves," quoting Russian papers; Dr. Dernburg in 
N. Y. Sun Oct. 11; Kaiser's speech reported in papers Aug. 4 and 6; Ger- 
man statement of French aggression, Washington Post, Aug. 4; many ar- 
ticles in Fatherland and Gaelic American, 

On Alsace-Lorraine: Read history of Louis XIV and Napoleon, and 
Munsterberg's "The War and America." 

On Servia: Report of Carnegie International Commission to Investi- 
gate the Balkan Wars; Alex. Konta in N. Y. Tribune Aug. 9; Dr. Geo. 
Bartelme, Washington Post Aug. 12; article by Father Schwertner in Rosary 
Magazine for August; Emily G. Hutchings in Reedy's Mirror (St. Louis) 
Aug. 14. 

Pan-Slavism: The Fatherland; article by Austrian Diplomatist, 
N. Y. Sun Oct. 11. 

Belgian Neutrality: Article by Prof. Burgess in Vital Issue; articles 
in Fatherland; quotation from English army officer's letter in Gaelic Ameri- 
can, August 29; German official statements in all American papers. 

England's Attitude: The Gaelic American (165 William St., N. Y.) 
the White Papers; Prof. Sloane, N. Y. Times Sept. 20; Count Von Berns- 
torff, N. Y. Times Aug. 30; Dr. Dernburg, N. Y. Sun Oct. 11; Wm L^yard 
Hale, N. Y. Journal Sept. 16; German Chancellor, Washington Times of 
Sept. 23; letter in London Nation Aug. 15 (N. Y. Sun Oct. 11); letter of 
Shaemas O'Sheel, Washington Times Aug. 8; B. L. Frazier, Washington 
Post Aug. 18; Kuno Franke, N. Y. Times Aug. 23; The War and America 
by Munsterberg; letter by F. C. T. Krueger, N. Y. Evening Post, Aug. 5; 
Emily G. Hutchings, Reedy's Mirror, Aug. 14; statements of Kier 
Hardie and Ramsay McDonald reported in English and American papers; 
England's joy over destruction of German commerce and determination to 
crush Germany, reported in N. Y. Times Aug. 16, Washington Post Sept. 
1 and 16; Washington Times Sept. 12, 14, 28. English and Irish history. 

American and other refutation of German atrocity tales, Belgian 
and Russian atrocities, French and English use of dum-dums, Louvain: 
N. Y. Sun Sept. 5, 17; N. Y. Times Aug. 16, 23, 30; Sept. 6, 20, 27; Oct. 
11; N. Y. World Sept. 1, 16; Oct. 9, 10; Washington Post Aug. 19, 21, 
26, 29; Sept. 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 19; Washington Star Sept. 5, 18; Oct. 12; 
Washington Times Aug. 15, 16, 28, 29; Sept. 20. 23; Oct. 14; The Vital 
Issue Sept. 21; Statement of Lord Roberts, The Independent, Oct. 10. 

Civilian Snipers and Non-combatants in Cities within war area: 

Read history of American occupation of Vera Cruz, and any book on inter- 
national military law. Note totally unproved nature of charges, even those 
of French and Belgian governments. 

Turcos and Senegalese: Reading notices and pictures in all papers; 

-^on Post Sept. 16; Washington Times Sept. 12, and especially 

Post Oct. 17, American physician's personal experience of 



JAN25l9@ci.A;i,94«()7 

/ / 



/^ 






THE CATECHISM 

OF 

BALAAM, Jr. 



It will be remembered that the prophet Balaam rode an ass 
which persisted in testifying to the Truth while Balaam was 
doing his best in behalf of the Lie. Let us imagine a modern 
Balaam and his ass answering, with more or less irregular al- 
ternation, certain questions about the present War. The reader 
is left to guess which answers are given by the recreant prophet 
and which by the ass inspired by God. 

Question: Who started this War? 
Answer: The Kaiser. 

Q. How do we know that? 

A. Well, everyone knows he is the War Lord! 

Q. How did he get that title? 

A. By some Englishman's deliberate mis-translation of the 
title "Kriegsherr," which is merely the same as any constitut- 
ional ruler's title of "Commander-in-Chief." 

Q. But is there no other proof that the Kaiser is a War-Lord? 
A. Oh yes, his record shows it. 

Q. What is his record? 

A. For twenty-five years he has ruled a nation armed and 
able to crush any enemy individually; but he has never struck. 
He has carried on the policy of his predecessors to the result that 
peace has reigned in Central Europe for forty-three years, a longer 
period than ever before since the breaking of the Pax Romana. 
During that time Germany has given the world a cherished ex- 
ample of human capabilities in all the ways of Peace — in the arts, 
science, scholarship, philosophy, local government, eflScient state 
— socialism, manufactures, commerce, personal freedom, per- 
sonal intelligence, personal health and capacity. 



Q. We must inevitably conclude, then, must we not, that 
the ruler of a nation so busy with continual triumphs of Peace 
would naturally plunge his nation into a wanton and unnecessary 
war? 

A. Oh, inevitably. 

Q. What corroboration is there for this view? 

A. The fact that he has kept the peace so long, while a war 
of triumph would have been what we call a "cinch;" the fact that 
if he started this war, he started it when the odds against 
him almost shut out the possible vision of success; the fact, finally, 
that individually he has no power at all to throw his enlightened, 
critical, independent and stubborn people into war. 

Q. But he has vast power, has he not? 

A. Oh yes, slightly less than the President of the United 
States. 

Q. How else do we know that the Kaiser started the war? 
A. Why, everyone knows he wants to rule all Europe, and 
then grab America and the rest of the world, 

Q. Has he, or any one for him, ever said so or hinted so? 
A. No, but the newspapers and Winston Churchill tell us so. 

Q. It seems very plausible, doesn't it? 

A. Decidedly — a nation of some 60,000,000 people, hemmed 
in the center of Europe, would have, as any one can see, what 
American slang calls "a healthy chance" to conquer the world. 

Q. How else do we know that the Kaiser started the war? 

A. Well, he begged the Czar to refrain from mobilizing, and 
assured him (having taken the trouble to get the assurance from 
Austria) that Austria would not seize any of the territory of Ser- 
via. He assured the English that if they remained neutral, he 
would not use his navy in a way to threaten the north coast of 
France or do anything that England could consider dangerous to 
her interests. Furthermore, we know that the Kaiser started the 
war because the Czar began to threaten Germany with his bar- 
barous millions, and because French aviators sailed over Germany 
and dropped bombs into Coblentz and Nuremberg before war 
was declared, and because the French Minister Delcasse, whose 
occupation is making war on Germany, had gone to St. Peters- 
burg — beg pardon, Petrograd — months ago to discuss joint action 
against Germany, and because three or four years ago Gen. 
Joffre was made commander-in-chief of the French armies with 
the unconcealed purpose of leading them against Germany, and 
because France recently made a loan to Russia which was used 



for the sole purpose of building railroads to the borders of Prus- 
sia — railroads of no use except to convey troops. We know that 
the Kaiser started the war, finally, because France has spent 
forty -three years of unintermittent brooding on the re-capture^of 
Alsace-Lorraine and on Revenge. 

Q. France deserves the sympathy of the world in her am- 
bition to re-capture Alsace-Lorraine, does she not? 
A. Oh, yes! 

Q. Tell us just why. 

A. Well, a couple of hundred years ago her King Louis 
XIV., the most heartless, ambitious and absolute conqueror 
since Attila, tore these provinces, amid flame and murder, from 
the bleeding side of Germany. The people are all German in 
blood to this day. For many years after Louis stole them, 
they cherished hatred of France and the French. Gradually 
they became resigned and peaceful, but neither honored nor 
respected by the French, nor prosperous, nor enthusiastically 
Gallic. When Germany had beaten France in 1870 after a most 
valiant defence, Elsass-Lothringen (their real names) were taken 
by Germany, both as a most obvious military necessity and as 
a just recovery of stolen property. 

Q. But the people have suffered^ terribly , have they not? 

A. Oh, of course; they have been given a constitution, 
large autonomy, an honorable place in the concert of German 
states, liberal laws, peace and unprecedented prosperity. Un- 
der this shocking treatment they have become so reconciled to 
their German kindred that in spite of forty years of French in- 
trigue, they are now being shot by the French for helping their 
German defenders and deceiving the French invaders. 

Q. But wasn't there a terrible incident at Zabern? 

A. Oh, frightful ! An old cobbler, drunk with the impudence 
of French intrigue, insulted the army till a young lieutenant 
lost his temper and hit him with his sword. In the subsequent 
rioting the government acted with great restraint, and removed 
the offending troops. All this was horrible to the French, who, 
two years ago at Casablanca, turned the stomachs of strong 
Spanish soldiers by their unmentionable atrocities on the Moors; 
and to the English, who, on July 26th of this year, first ran away 
from a body of Irish volunteers with clubbed rifles, and later 
killed three and wounded sixty citizens, chiefly women and 
children, in Dublin, and to the Russians, whose record is too 
resplendent to need illumination here. 



Q. Was there any other cause for this war? 
A. Oh yes, Austria's bullying attack on Servia. 

Q. This was quite unwarranted, was it not? 
A. Quite. The Servians are a sort of innocent child-like 
people, very much like Johnny, who 

"pushed Grandmother into the lake. 

Just to see how big a splash she would make," 
or like Jimmy, who 

"whimsically 

Jabbed a knife in sister Sally." 

They delight in assassinations, whenever they can get the ex- 
penses paid by Russia, and they maintain societies for the study 
of this sport, and for the purpose of drawing down the kopecks 
from Russia. Just as the German government fosters athletics, 
the Servian authorities encourage their child-like citizens in 
this gentle exercise of assassination, turning out large batches 
of bombs in the royal arsenal at Kragojevatz. Having a natur- 
al antipathy to civilization, they look upon it as a duty, not to 
say pleasure, to intrigue by all methods including the bomb 
and pistol for the break-up and destruction of Austria-Hungary. 
Their conduct in this respect has been no worse than if the Mex- 
icans, paid and encouraged by Brazil, Chili and the Argentine, 
should amuse themselves by practicing their well-known sports 
in the border states of our country; and the Servian assassina- 
tion of the Archduke and his wife was quite like a Mexican as- 
sassination of our Vice-President and his wife. Every one 
knows that we would make no fuss about little things of that 
sort. So, if Mexicans were constantly stirring up revolt in Tex- 
as and California, which we rescued from Mexican barbarism, 
they would be doing only what the Servians have done in Bos- 
nia and Herzegovina, which Austria protected from the Turk, 
and raised to prosperity and peace. 

Q. It is highly credible, is it not, that the Servian govern- 
ment and people would have united in assassination and de- 
fiance without any assurance from Russia that Russia would 
back them up? 

A. Oh, highly credible! 

Q. Russia is unselfishly interested in the establishment of 
a great South Slav Empire, is she not? 

A. Undoubtedly. Every fact known to us, and every line 
of reasoning prove it. For instance, Russia for long years has 



encouraged Pan-Slavism, which means the union of all Slavs 
under the Czar and the Procurator of the Holy Synod of the Rus- 
sian Church. This proves that she desired the erection of a 
strong, proud, independent rival Slav state. Then, again, Rus- 
sia's ambition of ambitions is to possess Constantinople, and as 
a great South Slav Empire would forever bar her from that, it 
is quite clear that she is fostering a great South Slav Empire. 

Q. Let us change the subject again. Mention another 
cause of the war. 

A. Why, Germany's violation of the neutrality of Belgium! 

Q. This aroused horror in the breasts of Englishmen and 
Frenchmen, did it not? 

A. Assuredly. It was outrageous. Why, nearly two years 
ago England had ordered her troops in Ireland to be ready to 
sail for Antwerp to strike at Germany. Thirty motor-cars full 
of French officers rushed into Belgium before war start- 
ed. French soldiers were in the forts at Liege and Namur. 
The forts of Belgium were directed as defences against Germany 
only. Events have shown that the English plan hinged on land- 
ing troops, not in France, but in Belgium, and the French tac- 
tics have shown that they expected to have their whole force free 
to strike at Alsace-Lorraine, by reason of the English and Bel- 
gians holding their northwestern frontier. Oh yes, the German 
violation of Belgian neutrality was dreadful. 

Q. But Germany, instead of being impolite enough to strike 
first when she found her neighbors reaching for their hip-pock- 
ets, should have calmly waited till the French were before Strass- 
burg, the Belgians and English threatening Aachen and Col- 
ogne, the Russians operating from Danzig against Berlin, 
should she not? 

A. Yes. Every Frenchman, Briton and Russian thinks so. 

Q. What is England's attitude toward this war? 
A. Goodness me, she is dreadfully opposed to it, you know. 
Oh dear me, yes ! 

Q. How do we know that? 

A. Well, when the first really great German ocean-liner was 
launched, the leading English newspaper said: "Germany must 
be destroyed." It is notorious that Germans have been deftly 
taking the world's markets away from the English, wherever 
they compete, which is a beastly thing, y'know, especially when 
the beggars do it by being more thoro, working harder, using more 
brains and less haughtiness, more business skill and friendliness 



and less rum, bibles and "expeditionary forces." The best un- 
biased writers say that this is the cause of the war; reason con- 
firms it; the gloating of the English day by day, as reports of the 
capture and sinking of German ships come in, makes it sure. 
Furthermore, as a political corroUary of her mercantile policy, 
England has always destroyed her greatest rival, deliberately 
and ruthlessly. She destroyed Spain by the aid of pirates and 
fortunate hurricanes ; Napoleonic France by inciting the rest of 
Europe against Napoleon; Russia by the aid of Turkey and Jap- 
an. Now it is Germany's turn. 

Q. But England is fighting for Liberty, Progress, Enlight- 
enment, Democracy, Altruism, and all that sort of thing, you 
know, isn't she? 

A. Oh, certainly. To be sure. She always fights for them. 
You'd think she'd achieve them sometime! 

Q. What example have we of British freedom, etc., etc.? 

A. Well, there's Ireland. Superior civilization gradually 
worn down by seven centuries of murder, pillage, arson, bribery, 
poisoning; culture rooted out by imposition of alien language, 
laws, education, dress, customs, etc., under penalty of death 
(culture recently revived, thanks to German scholars); popu- 
lation cut in half by famine while English soldiers took plenti- 
ful crops out of the land; manufactures ruined by laws forbid- 
ding them in so many words; Constitution ravished by bribery 
and force; politicians corrupted; tyranny continuing to-day as 
much as ever, a bit under cover. Then there is India. Occu- 
pied by fooling the Indians and kicking out the dearly-beloved 
French. Order restored by means of rifles, taxation, the ruin of 
industry, famines (countless millions dying under English rule 
in vast excess over numbers dying from like causes in many 
centuries preceding). And Egypt. Occupied under solemn 
pledge to get out again almost immediately. Hands of the clock 
stopped somehow, so the Briton finds himself compelled to stay 
and gather great wealth, not to mention being so very convenient 
to Suez, by which means he can instantly threaten and injure 
the commerce not only of Germany, but of dear France and Rus- 
sia too. Frequent hangings of Egyptians helps to relieve the 
bore of it all. Farther down. South Africa. Conquered by the 
unflinching British heroism which kept right on despite the 
sneers of the world which saw its vast armies routed by about 
80,000 active cavalrymen — sharpshooters; finally pacified by 
concentration of Boer women and children in camps where, ac- 
cording to British admission, 14,000 died of starvation and dis- 

8 



ease; according to Boer and Irish accounts, over 20,000; which- 
ever way you look at it, undeniably one of the finest triumphs 
of English altruism. Or Scotland, a brave, foolish people duped 
into a loyalty which is costing them their nationality, land and 
language, as they go over-seas by the scores of thousands year- 
ly, leaving their native hills to the grouse who are grown to be 
shot (sometimes) by the spindling scions of the pill-and-puff- 
ery "nobility." Or anywhere that English capital goes, as in 
the Putamayo district of Peru, where the Peruvian employees 
of English directors were quite unmolested by said directors 
in their system of driving each Indian captive to the limit till in 
a few months death was certain, with lashing, maiming, etc., 
all along the way, regardless of sex or age, till an Irishmen ex- 
posed this hell to the world. Or take England herself. Square 
mile after square mile of slums which represent the intensest 
and most continuous misery, the utmost degradation, the most 
appalling failure of civilization, to be found anywhere. Rural 
population disappearing, health and strength ditto. Remain- 
ing rural population divided between landlords who live on the 
rest, farmers whose political minds have been ossified into snob- 
bish toryism for centuries, and laborers who dare not raise a 
voice in public affairs. A tory party of Bourbon folly, a "Lib- 
eral" party existing for the big manufacturers and ruled by the 
Rothschilds, Sassoons and Samuelses thru secret party funds. 
Nowhere else, indeed, as they boast, does liberty flourish as in 
England and her possessions, thank God! 

Q. But these Germans, who are they.? 

A. Oh, "hordes;" "brutal legions;" "murderers;" "mobs;" 
^'barbarians." 

Q. How do we know this? 

A. Well, they are the parent stock from which all modern 
civilization has grown. Their blood and brains saved the decay- 
ing Roman world in the time of the "Chaos of Nations." They 
made Spain when Spain was great, France when France was great, 
Lombardy and Tuscany in the Renaissance, and England her- 
self. They built a new, distinct, solid civilization in the north 
of Europe. They drew out of themselves all the qualities that 
mankind has yet shown itself capable of; they took unto them- 
selves all the qualities of past ages that were useful and aspir- 
ational. They steadied the Church. They excelled in early 
manufactures and honest craftsmanship. They achieved real 
freedom in their splendid cities. They founded universities, and 
produced scholars. They have given the world some of its great- 



est philosophers, poets and dramatists. Since they achieved nat- 
ional unity, so great has become their pre-eminence in science and 
education that all the world is under their tutelage in these 
branches of human study and endeavor. They have contributed 
very many millions of immigrants to the United States, and their 
blood is now in the veins of all but a majority of Americans. To 
look at their history, to regard their institutions, to study their 
books or attend their universities, to meet them in their own land, 
and witness their peace, prosperity, geniality, good living, love 
for the arts and reverence for scholarship; to attend their operas, 
to meet them in business in America, to send your children to 
school with their children, to see their affectionate home-life, 
to do your banking with them, to buy your beer, ice-cream, 
candies, groceries and delicatessen from them — why, you'd think 
they were a civilized, splendid people. But not so! The Eng- 
lish tell us, and the American press echoes, of course, that they 
are a horde of barbarians, single-minded on putting out the light 
of the world. 

Q. There is a lot of proof, of course, of the charges against 
them? 

A. Oh, a lot! Thousands of newspapers say it is true. Boys 
in their 'teens make affidavits. Lots of people know other people 
who have heard from other people that they know other people 
who have seen these atrocities. The very fact that every story 
of cruelty, which an inimical scribbler could find in his memory 
or in histories of savage times and climes, has been brought 
forward, should prove the veracity of the charges. Aren't stories 
of old men being hung up by their thumbs with slow fires under 
their feet, and children having their hands cut off, and women 
being brutally and quite needlessly separated from their babes — 
aren't these classics? So, of course, the German soldiers, who 
are the same sort of people whom you meet by the hundreds, 
your German-American fellow citizens — of course they have 
committed these classic atrocities. The papers say so. If you 
want further proof, there is the affidavit of five eminent Ameri- 
can newspaper men, that no such atrocities could be verified 
by them on the actual scenes. There is the testimony of hun- 
dreds of returning Americans, Mrs. Benjamin Harrison, college 
professors and presidents, and such like, to the restraint and 
company of the German army. There are the specific refutations 
of specific stories which have appeared in even our anti-Ger- 
man papers. There are the repeated and official German de- 
nials. There are inherent probabilities and common-sense, if 
they count. There are the records of the different races — the 

lO 



records of Walloons and French, English and Russians, to put 
against the records of Germans. There are even the warnings of 
Englishmen like Lord Roberts, Lord Gladstone, Lord Selbourne 
and Jerome K. Jerome, that German atrocity tales are probably 
false and fictitious. 

Q. The Germans use dum-dum bullets and the Allies do 
not, isn't that it? 

A. To be sure. The reports of the Allies speak of the except- 
ionally clean, small holes made by German bullets, and therefore 
charge that they are expansive missiles. The Germans, on the other 
hand, have no proofs except the capture of large quantities of 
dum-dums from the very persons and bodies of the Allied troops, 
and the sight of such wounds as an American newspaper-man 
has described as being made by hunting bullets, such as would be 
used against savage beasts. 

Q. It is barbarous for the Germans to strew mines in the 
open sea, is it not? 

A. Oh, very. Of course, it counts nothing that the Ger- 
mans officially deny that they have done any such thing. The 
English fishing fleet sailed all over the North Sea for weeks with- 
out striking a mine, so they must have been there. On the other 
hand, the story that German warships had captured fifteen 
fishing vessels is obviously untrue; the mines must have risen 
up out of the sea and towed those fishing boats to Germany. 
Of course, if those two English cruisers, which first were sunk, 
had been sunk by submarines or torpedoes, England could not 
whimper and squeal to the world about German barbarities; so, 
while her fishing fleet is captured by war ships, her cruisers must 
be blown up by mines! When German naval victories became 
too frequent, however, the English had to abandon the pretence, 
and admit that three cruisers were destroyed by one submarine. 

Q. What is to be said about the German use of Zeppelins t* 
A. It is a foul crime. 

Q. Why? 

A. Because the other nations have no Zeppelins! 

Q. Any other reason? 

A. Yes. Non-combatants who stay in fortified cities within 
the area of war must wish to be killed; and if they protest against 
being killed by bombs from the sky, it is obvious that they have 
a preference for death by the Krupp method. Now it is cer- 
tainly monstrous for the Germans to deny these poor people's 
last wishes! 

II 



Q. When troops have won a difficult victory in fair fight 
with enemy troops, and when they thereupon occupy a city; 
and when the non-combatant citizens thereupon begin to "snipe" 
them from windows, roofs, cellars, corners and every convenient 
skulking-place; in view of the fact that international law and 
the rule of civiUzed warfare permit the drastic punishment of 
such towns and such people; what should the invading army do? 

A. Well, if they happen to be French, English, Russian, 
Belgian, Servian, or any of that sort, and if we could conceive of 
any of these capturing a German town, and of German citizens 
doing any sniping, the conquerors should, of course, punish the 
German barbarians by indiscriminate shooting, looting and 
burning. But if it happens that Germans capture an enemy's 
town, they should, of course, stand around happily, and permit 
the inhabitants to use them as targets. They should, doubtless, 
stand as still as possible so as to facilitate good aim. They 
might even line up in long rows to facilitate the use of mitrail- 
leuses by these very progressive snipers. We understand that 
Lord Cowdray and Sir Lionel Garden were very indignant that 
the American marines did not act thus at Vera Cruz, and doubt- 
less they will share in the English regret that the Germans did 
not act thus at Lou vain. Instead the Germans,, carefully pro- 
tecting the Cathedral and Town Hall and great pictures, burned 
one-fifth of the city, putting an end to sniping and avoiding 
much future bloodshed. 

Q. What is the crowning crime of the Germans? 
A. That they have been winning. 

Q. But there have been many French and English successes, 
have they not? 

A. Not exactly. There have been some Nigger-Moor-Arab 
successes, and some Hindu-Tartar successes, but we cannot re- 
call any successes by English or French troops with the exception 
of their strategic retreats. Whatever successes have been achieved 
under the tri-color of La France along the Alsace-Lorraine 
border must be attributed to the African savages who have been 
brought there by the French, since the French reports them- 
selves give these "dashing Turkos," etc., the credit. The at- 
tack, which, since the early days of September, is threatening 
the German's right flank, is being delivered chiefly by Sepoys, 
Ghurkas, Sikhs, and other pleasant denizens of India, by Rus- 
sians, and by the same Turkos and Senegalese, who, according 
to American eye-witnesses, return from the battle with the ears, 
noses, fingers and even heads of German soldiers. 

12 



Q. Let us get this right. Is it actually true that in the very 
midst of the fields of Europe, among the cities that represent all 
the treasures of civilization, among the towns that shelter the 
peaceful family life of the white race; wild Arabs, cruel Moors, 
savage Senegalese, black negroes, ferocious and heartless Hindus 
are being brought? 

A. It is all quite true. These things are being done by 
France and England, which are also now the bosom friends of 
the Cossack and the Tartar, and the nerveless, heartless, con- 
scienceless little yellow man of Japan. 

Q. Are there any more savages who could possibly be 
brought into Europe to fight for freedom, civilization and de- 
mocracy against the German barbarians? 

A. If there are, the Allies will find them and bring them 
to Europe. 

Q. All this augurs well for the future of European civiliza- 
tion and the dominance of the White Race, does it not? 

A. There are some things too serious to be facetious about. 

Q. What do the American people think about this use of 
all the savages of the four quarters of the globe to fight White 
Men in the White Man's home? 

A. The masses of the American people can hardly be said 
to have done any thinking about this war as yet. They are just 
now beginning to sicken of the falsehoods shouted at them by 
the Anglo-American press, and, very soon, we hope they will 
begin to think. 

Q. Can the use of negro and half-negro troops by France 
be compared with the use of American negro regiments by the 
United States? 

A. Not at all. The negroes in the Union Army in the Civil 
War had been meliorated and advanced toward civilization by 
contact with Southern civilization at its best as well as its worst. 
They were uplifted from savagery, furthermore, by the inspir- 
ing knowledge that they were fighting for their own freedom; 
and they were under the command of calm American officers 
who had more sorrow than hatred in their hearts. The negro 
troops in the American army to-day are men long in contact 
with white American civilization in all its phases. But the black 
men in the French army are savages; knowing white civiliza- 
tion only thru its brutal military organization; transported to 
Europe as mere mercenaries and turned loose on a foe whom 
their white officers have been taught to hate venomously for 
forty years. 

13 



Q. Why do the English love the Hindus? 

A. We must discriminate in our reply to that. The English 
do not love the mild Hindus whom they kick about and tax and 
sweat and kill by famine; they do not love the educated Hindus 
who aspire to rid their land of the English and raise their country- 
men to manhood. But sixty years ago the English discovered 
(according to their story) that the Hindu soldier is a heartless, 
bloodthirsty murderer, especially apt at the slaughter of women 
and children. Whether this English view of Hindu traits has 
anything to do with the bringing of Hindu troops into white 
men's Europe, is left to you. You have three guesses. Of course, 
as the English have shown in South Africa and elsewhere, it 
makes a difference WHOSE women and children — ! 

Q. Well, it is dreadful for the Germans to have any deal- 
ings with the Turks, is it not? 

A. Oh, dreadful. Of course it was different when England 
used to be the firm Ally of the Turks. 

Q. Explain how dreadful the Turks are. 

A. Well, they are white men. They have been a European 
powder for many centuries. They are said by some, who have 
considered their achievements and their difficulties, to be one 
of the great constructive races. They are admitted by all who 
know them to be innately humane and kindly. They were re- 
ligiously tolerant long before the Christian nations. Their 
civilization has run to seed, and their natural kindliness and 
tolerance, intolerably exasperated by the intriguing and plot- 
ting of inferior peoples who happened to be Christians, has 
sometimes changed to a decided ferocity in punishing the trouble- 
makers. Thereupon professional English humanitarians, seeing 
a chance to divert attention from Ireland, India and such places; 
and Balkan Committees run from the Foreign Office in Down- 
ing Street; and Macedonian Committees run from Athens; and 
Armenian Committees subsidized by Russia, all these have added 
a few thousand per cent, to the Turkish reprisals and transformed 
them to dreadful atrocities. 

Q. Well, with whom should Americans sympathize? 

A. Oh, with the Allies, of course. Dear me, yes, can you 
doubt it? Are we not Anglo-Saxons? The more than seventy 
per cent, of us, who are Germans, Irish, Austrian Slavs, and 
persecuted Jews from Russia, must not interfere with Anglo- 
Saxon unity, y'know. Didn't England do her best to preserve 
that unity at the bayonet's point in 1776? Didn't she do her 
best to restore it by holding up our ships, and stealing our sailors 

14 



till 1814? Didn't she strive for our unity by fitting out very 
many war vessels, financing, officering, manning and arming 
them, to destroy our commerce, in 1860-64? Don't the columns 
of her newspapers and periodicals, so full of insults toward us, 
show how she loves us? Then, again, must we not show that 
the American spirit of fair-play is equal to the English by siding 
with the seven nations which have jumped on the two? Must 
we not show our love of frankness and honesty by siding with 
the nations which deliberately put a ring around Germany, 
which plotted her overthrow merely because she was a com- 
mercial rival, which harbored insane hatred of her for forty 
years, and which yet pretend that Germany started the war 
merely because she struck without waiting for their knives to 
enter her vitals? Must we not side with the alliance which in- 
cludes the Moor, the Arab, the Negro, the Hindu, the Cossack, 
the Apache and the Hooligan? Must we not prefer the civiliza- 
tion of Omsk and Tompsk, of Warsaw and Kishineff, of the 
knout and the pogrom and the hopelessly corrupt and enslaving 
Russian church — must we not prefer these to the civilization of 
Nuremberg and Munich, Dresden, Berlin, Bayreuth, Oberam- 
mergau, Vienna, Buda-Pesth and Prague — Bremen and Ham- 
burg — Bonn and Heidelberg — Goethe and Schiller, Wagner and 
Strauss, and a thousand scholars and leaders of thought; the 
civilization of industry, peace and intelligence? Oh, surely, we 
Americans must prefer hatred and jealousy and deception to 
simple honesty and straightforwardness; we must prefer the 
Hooligan and the Apache, the dupe of the English manufacturer 
and the insanely revengeful dupe of Delcasse, to the indus- 
trious, sober-minded German; we must prefer the mongrel 
hordes of niggers and half-niggers, Hindus and Tartars, to the 
pure stock of the white race, the civilizing Teuton; we must 
prefer the cowards who band together in overwhelming num- 
bers before they dare attack their victims; we must prefer the 
squealers who began to whimper and call the Germans names 
the minute the Germans began to whip them; we must prefer 
the liars who din our ears with absurd stories which reliable 
Americans on the ground promptly deny. Oh yes, these must 
be our preference. 

The newspapers tell us so. 

But Have the Newspapers Read 

Our Hearts, Our Minds, 

Our Consciences, 

Correctly? 

IS 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 547 904 3 • 



THE BRITISH BRAND OF CIVILIZATION 




Me name is Tommy Atkins, 
I'm a bloomin' clever chap, 
For me comrade is a Cossack 
An' me partner is a Jap; 



I'm friends with 'airy Gurkas 
An' bloody 'eathen Sikhs, 
With black Algerian Turcos 
An' other colored freaks; 



An' with all the bloomin' virtues 
For which you know we shine. 
We're carryin' CIVILIZATION 
To the people on the Rhine. 



LIBRARY 



021 



Hollinge 
nH 



1 



